Subject: Re: ghostscript 6.0
To: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Hubert Feyrer <email@example.com>
Date: 03/17/2000 04:35:05
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> Because print/ghostscript was gs4.x ? I don't remember the details.
> Anyway it can be usefull to have the 2 available for some time, I'm
> not sure all the 3rd party drivers have been ported to gs6 yet.
I don't know if there is a special "porting" effort needed, bug whatever -
let's call it ghostscript6 then. And both v5 and v6 enabled in
> > One thing: gs5 has a BUILD_DEPENDS on jpeg to use it's sources. Can we
> > make that go away, and depend on a full installed jpeg package instead of
> > fiddling with the pkg's private parts? Would help in unifying *DEPENDS
> > syntax... :)
> There is mbone/vat which does this with audio/gsm too.
That's not an excuse. :)
> There is a note in the gs6 sources saying it can't use a standart libjpeg
> because the jpeg used in postscript documents isn't the standart one, so I'm
> not sure this is possible.
Well, it's rather the other way 'round. From a "make" in ghostscript5:
/bin/rm -f /usr/tmp/pkgsrc/print/ghostscript5/work.i386/gs5.50/jpeg
/bin/ln -s /usr/tmp/pkgsrc/graphics/jpeg/work.i386/jpeg-6b /usr/tmp/pkgsrc/print/ghostscript5/work.i386/gs5.50/jpeg
So it seems ghostscript works fine with the "standard" jpeg. On the other
hand, if it needs it's own, fine with me too. It should just all be
handled in one package, not use a second pkg just to extract things.
> A solution would be to have the gs6's package Makefile extract the jpeg sources
> in gs6's build tree instead of symlink'ing to the jpeg package.
Yes. Maybe investigate first if it's really good to use the "standard"
jpeg, instead of the one that comes with GS, if your above claim is true.
Microsoft: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to be tomorrow?"
BSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"